It is a really sad state here and I realize I am guilty of it too.
Right side: He didn't do it, shes lying and cannot state facts.
Left side: Kav did it 100% and he's guilty beyond belief.
None of us know or will probably ever know if this actually happened or not. People automatically pick a side that agrees to their politics, I am guilty as well. I think her story has to many holes in it. You live 6.8 miles from area where this party was but have no idea how you got there or home. You place 4 people there one of which is her good friend and all say this didn't happen or they weren't there.
We can only base our assumptions on what we hear and both sides are hearing different things. So, to the
left: stop! You have no idea if he did it or not. 0 proof.
Right: stop! We have no idea if he did it or not. 0 proof.
I do not know if he did it or not I just look at her story as I would anyone's. If your witnesses you named say no...I gotta look at facts.
Which is why we can not come to a definitive conclusion and must merely go with the facts presented using the innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt standard.
There must be credible evidence presented in order for something to be assumed to be true. Credible here actually has a legal definition, its evidence that is unimpeachable, meaning no holes or an extremely low probability of being incomplete. The mere fact that she said she didn't remember the time and place of the alleged event discredits that testimony, without an outside corroborating evidence. Being a Democrat with a history of political activism just provides the motivation to lie, no that it was needed, merely that it further discredits her allegations.
Any lawyer would ask questions that should would say "I don't know" or "I don't remember" to and thus show her memory to be unreliable and if her memory is the only evidence provided then there is no evidence.